This is a lot more expensive than it was two years ago. In 2006, when I ran roughly 45 of these ads in some key congressional districts order to monitor the poorly named Googlebomb the Elections campaign, there were more twice as many impressions and clicks for only about 15% the cost. So, it appears that 2006 might have been the "golden age" for individual grassroots activists to create in campaigns such as these. From now on, the increasing cost of these campaigns will probably force individual activists to focus on individual campaigns, and not throw a net as large as this.
Despite the expense, it was still cost-effective. It is hard for me to imagine that $3,300 of television ads would have been seen by 305,000 people, and resulted in 2,104 taking the initiative to find out more information on the content of the ad. This was probably even more cost effective than phonebanking or canvassing (although Natasha and I did canvass our neighborhood, too). How long would it have taken us to get on the phone or knock on the door of 2,104 people who were receptive to our message and wanted to hear more? I seriously doubt we could have pulled that off from Labor Day through Election Day, even if we made it our full-time jobs.
House campaigns are still largely untapped. The vast majority of the cost of this campaign came from the three Senate campaigns--Chambliss, Coleman and Gordon--plus the two McCain ads. The House campaigns (the other six listed here), overall, were less expensive per click and had a higher click-through rate. In the future, a focus on the House might be more appropriate for the budget-activist.
All in all, I am pretty happy with how this went. How did your campaigns go?
STATE BLOGS
